Difference between revisions of "Moshe and the Luchot in Art/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
>Import script
>Import script
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
<subcategory name="">One or Two?
 
<subcategory name="">One or Two?
<p>While  Tissot portrays the tablets as two connected blocks of stone, Reni depicts them as two separate tablets.<fn>In Chagall's painting shown here, it is not completely clear whether the tablets are connected or not.  In several of his other images, though, they are more obviously attached.</fn>  Which depiction is closer to the Biblical text?  The tablets are consistently referred to as "two tablets of testimony" or "two tablets of stone",<fn>See, for instance, Shemot 31:18, 32:15, 34:1, 34:29</fn> suggesting that they were two distinct slabs.  Why, then, do Tissot and many earlier artists depict them as attached?  This may be due to the fact that writing tablets in medieval times took the form of diptychs (a two-leaved tablet).<fn>Thus, medieval artists naturally depicted the tablets based on their contemporary models.  Modern artists, in turn,  were likely influenced by the earlier renderings.</fn>  Alternatively, the popular assumption that each tablet contained only five commandments<fn>See below that not all agree on this point.</fn> may have led artists to view each tablet alone as incomplete, and, thus, to join the two.</p>
+
<p>While  Tissot portrays the tablets as two connected blocks of stone, Reni depicts them as two separate tablets.<fn>In Chagall's painting shown here, it is not completely clear whether the tablets are connected or not.  In several of his other images, though, they are more obviously attached.</fn>  Which depiction is closer to the Biblical text?  The tablets are consistently referred to as "two tablets of testimony" or "two tablets of stone",<fn>See, for instance, Shemot <aht source="Shemot32-15">32:15</aht>, <aht source="Shemot34-1">34:1</aht>, <aht source="Shemot34-29">34:29</aht></fn> suggesting that they were two distinct slabs.  Why, then, do Tissot and many earlier artists depict them as attached?  This may be due to the fact that writing tablets in medieval times took the form of diptychs (a two-leaved tablet).<fn>Thus, medieval artists naturally depicted the tablets based on their contemporary models.  Modern artists, in turn,  were likely influenced by the earlier renderings.</fn>  Alternatively, the popular assumption that each tablet contained only five commandments<fn>See below that not all agree on this point.</fn> may have led artists to view each tablet alone as incomplete, and, thus, to join the two.</p>
 
</subcategory>
 
</subcategory>
 
 
 
<subcategory name="">Throwing the Tablets
 
<subcategory name="">Throwing the Tablets
<p>In Tissot's image, an angry Moshe is about to heave the tablets down below.  In Chagall's painting, in contrast, Moshe looks as if he has simply dropped the stones.  What really happened?  Shemot 32:19 states, "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָיו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר", which is commonly understood to mean that Moshe intentionally smashed the tablets.<fn>This is supported by the <i>piel</i> (intensive) form of the word "וַיְשַׁבֵּר".</fn>  Rashbam, though, suggests that upon seeing the Golden Calf, Moshe's strength left him and the tablets fell from his hands.<fn>The word "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ" is difficult as it connotes a throwing rather than dropping. This prompts Rashbam to suggest that Moshe managed to throw them slightly away from him so as not to drop them on his feet.  Rashbam's position might be motivated by a discomfort with the idea that Moshe would intentionally destroy the handiwork of Hashem.</fn> Instead of focusing on Moshe's anger, Rashbam and Chagall highlight Moshe's frustration and disappointment with the nation.</p>
+
<p>In Tissot's image, an angry Moshe is about to heave the tablets down below.  In Chagall's painting, in contrast, Moshe looks as if he has simply dropped the stones.  What really happened?  Shemot 32:19 states, "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָיו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר", which is commonly understood to mean that Moshe intentionally smashed the tablets.<fn>This is supported by the <i>piel</i> (intensive) form of the word "וַיְשַׁבֵּר".</fn>  <multilink><aht source="RashbamShemot32-19">Rashbam</aht><aht source="RashbamShemot32-19">Shemot 32:19</aht><aht parshan="Rashbam">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</aht></multilink>, though, suggests that upon seeing the Golden Calf, Moshe's strength left him and the tablets fell from his hands.<fn>The word "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ" is difficult as it connotes a throwing rather than dropping. This prompts Rashbam to suggest that Moshe managed to throw them slightly away from him so as not to drop them on his feet.  Rashbam's position might be motivated by a discomfort with the idea that Moshe would intentionally destroy the handiwork of Hashem.</fn> Instead of focusing on Moshe's anger, Rashbam and Chagall highlight Moshe's frustration and disappointment with the nation.</p>
 
</subcategory>
 
</subcategory>
  
 
<subcategory name="">Division of the Decalogue
 
<subcategory name="">Division of the Decalogue
 
<p>How were the commandments written on the tablets? Of the three artists, only Reni relates to the question.  While many assume that there were five commandments on each stone,<fn>See, for example, this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/haggertymuseum/3903803653/?rb=1">image</a> of the tablets by Chagall, or Rembrandt's famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg">painting</a>. Depictions of the tablets in many synagogues atop the ark similarly tend to portray five on each slab.</fn> Reni divides the Decalogue unevenly, displaying "Honor your father..." as the first commandment on the second tablet.  What are the origins of such a division?</p>
 
<p>How were the commandments written on the tablets? Of the three artists, only Reni relates to the question.  While many assume that there were five commandments on each stone,<fn>See, for example, this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/haggertymuseum/3903803653/?rb=1">image</a> of the tablets by Chagall, or Rembrandt's famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg">painting</a>. Depictions of the tablets in many synagogues atop the ark similarly tend to portray five on each slab.</fn> Reni divides the Decalogue unevenly, displaying "Honor your father..." as the first commandment on the second tablet.  What are the origins of such a division?</p>
<p>The Torah actually never states how the commandments were distributed amongst the two stones, and this allows for various possibilities.  According to R. Chanina ben Gamliel in the Mekhilta, there were five on each tablet, with each commandment in some way relating to its partner on the second tablet.  The Sages there, in contrast, suggest that there were ten on each tablet.<fn>This position can be understood in light of what is known about covenants in the Ancient Near East, where a copy of the terms was given to each party.  If the tablets represented the written contract of the covenant between Hashem and His nation, here too, two copies are necessary. Other opinions in the Yerushalmi go as far as to suggest that there were 20 or 40 on each tablet, presumably assuming that the commandments were written on the front and back of the stones, or that the stones were a cube with writing on four of its sides.</fn>  Reni, here, follows the division of Augustine,<fn>Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII:II:71.</fn> who has the three commandments between man and God on one tablet and the seven commandments between man and man on the other.<fn>According to Augustine, the first commandment combines, "I am the Lord…" with "You shall have no other gods…", while the verse of "Do not covet..." actually constitutes two separate commands, one for the house of a fellow man and one for his wife.</fn>  For elaboration, see Decalogue Divisions.</p>
+
<p>The Torah actually never states how the commandments were distributed amongst the two stones, and this allows for various possibilities.  According to R. Chanina ben Gamliel in the<multilink><aht source="MekhiltaBaChodesh8">Mekhilta</aht><aht source="MekhiltaBaChodesh8">Yitro BaChodesh 8</aht><aht parshan="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael">About the Mekhilta</aht></multilink>, there were five on each tablet, with each commandment in some way relating to its partner on the second tablet.  The Sages there, in contrast, suggest that there were ten on each tablet.<fn>This position can be understood in light of what is known about covenants in the Ancient Near East, where a copy of the terms was given to each party.  If the tablets represented the written contract of the covenant between Hashem and His nation, here too, two copies are necessary. Other opinions in the Yerushalmi go as far as to suggest that there were 20 or 40 on each tablet, presumably assuming that the commandments were written on the front and back of the stones, or that the stones were a cube with writing on four of its sides.</fn>  Reni, here, follows the division of Augustine,<fn>Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII:II:71.</fn> who has the three commandments between man and God on one tablet and the seven commandments between man and man on the other.<fn>According to Augustine, the first commandment combines, "I am the Lord…" with "You shall have no other gods…", while the verse of "Do not covet..." actually constitutes two separate commands, one for the house of a fellow man and one for his wife.</fn>  For elaboration, see Decalogue Divisions.</p>
 
</subcategory>
 
</subcategory>
  
 
<subcategory name="">Shape and Size
 
<subcategory name="">Shape and Size
<p>All three artists paint the tablets as curved on top, but they differ in the way they envision their overall size.  While Tissot and Chagall portray the tablets as a relatively small and square twosome, Reni depicts long and rectangular tablets.  The Biblical text is silent on the tablets' shape and size but Rabbinic sources<fn>See the discussion in Bavli Bava Batra 14a.</fn> suggest that each was a square, six handbreadths in width and length, and three handbreadths in thickness.  It is not totally clear how these measurements are obtained and, in fact, the only known limiting factor is related to the dimensions given for the ark which contained them.<fn>The ark was two and a half cubits in length, a cubit and a half in width, and a cubit and a half in height.  This gives a maximum, but not minimum, size for the tablets.  As it is not clear if the two tablets were placed side by side (as assumed by the Talmud Bavli) or laid one atop of the other, many varying dimensions are possible.  There is also controversy regarding what else was placed in the ark and regarding the amount of handbreadths in a cubit, all of which affect the calculations.</fn>  For more, see <aht page="Ark of the Covenant">Ark of the Covenant</aht>.</p>
+
<p>All three artists paint the tablets as curved on top, but they differ in the way they envision their overall size.  While Tissot and Chagall portray the tablets as a relatively small and square twosome, Reni depicts long and rectangular tablets.  The Biblical text is silent on the tablets' shape and size but Rabbinic sources<fn>See the discussion in <multilink><aht source="BavliBavaBatra14aa">Talmud Bavli Bava Batra</aht><aht source="BavliBavaBatra14a">Bava Batra 14a</aht><aht parshan="Talmud Bavli">About the Bavli</aht></multilink>.</fn> suggest that each was a square, six handbreadths in width and length, and three handbreadths in thickness.  It is not totally clear how these measurements are obtained and, in fact, the only known limiting factor is related to the dimensions given for the ark which contained them.<fn>The ark was two and a half cubits in length, a cubit and a half in width, and a cubit and a half in height.  This gives a maximum, but not minimum, size for the tablets.  As it is not clear if the two tablets were placed side by side (as assumed by the Talmud Bavli) or laid one atop of the other, many varying dimensions are possible.  There is also controversy regarding what else was placed in the ark and regarding the amount of handbreadths in a cubit, all of which affect the calculations.</fn>  For more, see <aht page="Ark of the Covenant">Ark of the Covenant</aht>.</p>
 
</subcategory>
 
</subcategory>
 
 
 
<subcategory name="">Moshe's Horns?
 
<subcategory name="">Moshe's Horns?
<p>Chagall portrays Moshe with two horns on his head.  These are absent from the other depictions, but are a prominent feature of many renderings of Moshe.  In Shemot 34:30, after Moshe descends with the second set of tablets, we are told, "כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו" (Moshe's skin took on a radiant glow).  The conception that the verse speaks of a horned Moshe stems from the translation in Jerome's Latin Vulgate which renders "קָרַן", as <i>cornuta</i>, or horn.<fn>This is a valid possible translation of the noun form, קרן, which can be understood as either a beam of light or a horn.  In context, though, the verse seems to be speaking of a shining countenance, not a horned Moshe.  It is also possible that Jerome himself did not think that Moshe literally sprouted horns, but understood the word "horned" as a metaphor to mean glorified or strong.  See Yirmeyahu 48:25, Yechezkel 29:21, and Tehillim 148:14 where such metaphoric usages can be found.</fn> It is perhaps surprising, though, that Chagall, a Jewish artist, would be influenced by the Vulgate, and it is possible that his source is actually Rashi's comments on the verse.<fn>It is also possible that Chagall was influenced not directly by the Vulgate itself, but rather indirectly from all of the artistic renderings which were influenced by the Vulgate.</fn>  When explaining the phrase, Rashi also connects the word "קָרַן" to horns, writing: "because the light shone and protruded like horns."  If so, Chagall is portraying shining beams, which simply appear like horns.<fn>In some of his <a href="http://glory2godforallthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/moseschagall.jpg">other depictions</a>, this is even more explicit.</fn></p>
+
<p>Chagall portrays Moshe with two horns on his head.  These are absent from the other depictions, but are a prominent feature of many renderings of Moshe.  In <aht source="Shemot34-29">Shemot 34:30</aht>, after Moshe descends with the second set of tablets, we are told, "כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו" (Moshe's skin took on a radiant glow).  The conception that the verse speaks of a horned Moshe stems from the translation in Jerome's Latin Vulgate which renders "קָרַן", as <i>cornuta</i>, or horn.<fn>This is a valid possible translation of the noun form, קרן, which can be understood as either a beam of light or a horn.  In context, though, the verse seems to be speaking of a shining countenance, not a horned Moshe.  It is also possible that Jerome himself did not think that Moshe literally sprouted horns, but understood the word "horned" as a metaphor to mean glorified or strong.  See Yirmeyahu 48:25, Yechezkel 29:21, and Tehillim 148:14 where such metaphoric usages can be found.</fn> It is perhaps surprising, though, that Chagall, a Jewish artist, would be influenced by the Vulgate, and it is possible that his source is actually Rashi's comments on the verse.<fn>It is also possible that Chagall was influenced not directly by the Vulgate itself, but rather indirectly from all of the artistic renderings which were influenced by the Vulgate.</fn>  When explaining the phrase, Rashi also connects the word "קָרַן" to horns, writing: "because the light shone and protruded like horns."  If so, Chagall is portraying shining beams, which simply appear like horns.<fn>In some of his <a href="http://glory2godforallthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/moseschagall.jpg">other depictions</a>, this is even more explicit.</fn></p>
 
</subcategory>
 
</subcategory>
 
</category>
 
</category>

Version as of 05:52, 12 February 2014

Moshe and the Luchot in Art

Introduction

The three images discussed here all display Moshe with the Tablets of the Covenant, ("לֻחוֹת הַבְּרִית") but at slightly different points in the narrative. In Reni's image,1 Moshe simply holds the tablets, while in Tissot's painting2 he prepares to throw them in response to the sin of the Golden Calf. Chagall3 illustrates the next moment, after the tablets have already been dropped. The three artists' depictions of Moshe vary, reflecting their different understanding of his emotions at this juncture. Similarly, their portrayals of the tablets differ, highlighting how little we really know about their shape, size, and what was written on each of them.

Contrasting Images

Reni

Reni's painting is almost a portrait of Moshe. The majestic leader fills the image, his red robes contrasting with the grey clouds in the sky. He holds one of the long stone tablets against his body and lifts the other above his head. It is not clear if he is reacting to the Golden Calf, or if he is simply calling out to the nation to present them with the tablets.

Tissot

Unlike Reni, Tissot chooses to render Moshe in action, capturing his fury at the sinning nation. Moshe stands on a rock, body arching back, as he prepares to hurl the tablets below. A second figure, presumably Yehoshua, reaches for Moshe's robes, perhaps attempting to prevent the sacred tablets from being destroyed. The scene is set, not amidst lofty clouds, but against a mountainous range. The harsh lines of the stones reflect Moshe's severe response to the Golden Calf.

Chagall

Chagall, like the other artists, opts to portray just Moshe and the tablets without the accompanying nation. The image is divided on a diagonal with a hint of grey-black clouds filling the left half, and a greenish mountain covering the right. A dismayed Moshe stands on Mount Sinai, his hands held aloft in a gesture of helplessness. At his feet lie the still intact stone tablets which have apparently dropped from his hands.

Relationship to the Biblical Text

The artists' choices reflect certain ambiguities in the Biblical text and different possible interpretive stances:

One or Two?

While Tissot portrays the tablets as two connected blocks of stone, Reni depicts them as two separate tablets.4 Which depiction is closer to the Biblical text? The tablets are consistently referred to as "two tablets of testimony" or "two tablets of stone",5 suggesting that they were two distinct slabs. Why, then, do Tissot and many earlier artists depict them as attached? This may be due to the fact that writing tablets in medieval times took the form of diptychs (a two-leaved tablet).6 Alternatively, the popular assumption that each tablet contained only five commandments7 may have led artists to view each tablet alone as incomplete, and, thus, to join the two.

Throwing the Tablets

In Tissot's image, an angry Moshe is about to heave the tablets down below. In Chagall's painting, in contrast, Moshe looks as if he has simply dropped the stones. What really happened? Shemot 32:19 states, "וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָיו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר", which is commonly understood to mean that Moshe intentionally smashed the tablets.8 RashbamShemot 32:19About R. Shemuel b. Meir, though, suggests that upon seeing the Golden Calf, Moshe's strength left him and the tablets fell from his hands.9 Instead of focusing on Moshe's anger, Rashbam and Chagall highlight Moshe's frustration and disappointment with the nation.

Division of the Decalogue

How were the commandments written on the tablets? Of the three artists, only Reni relates to the question. While many assume that there were five commandments on each stone,10 Reni divides the Decalogue unevenly, displaying "Honor your father..." as the first commandment on the second tablet. What are the origins of such a division?

The Torah actually never states how the commandments were distributed amongst the two stones, and this allows for various possibilities. According to R. Chanina ben Gamliel in theMekhiltaYitro BaChodesh 8About the Mekhilta, there were five on each tablet, with each commandment in some way relating to its partner on the second tablet. The Sages there, in contrast, suggest that there were ten on each tablet.11 Reni, here, follows the division of Augustine,12 who has the three commandments between man and God on one tablet and the seven commandments between man and man on the other.13 For elaboration, see Decalogue Divisions.

Shape and Size

All three artists paint the tablets as curved on top, but they differ in the way they envision their overall size. While Tissot and Chagall portray the tablets as a relatively small and square twosome, Reni depicts long and rectangular tablets. The Biblical text is silent on the tablets' shape and size but Rabbinic sources14 suggest that each was a square, six handbreadths in width and length, and three handbreadths in thickness. It is not totally clear how these measurements are obtained and, in fact, the only known limiting factor is related to the dimensions given for the ark which contained them.15 For more, see Ark of the Covenant.

Moshe's Horns?

Chagall portrays Moshe with two horns on his head. These are absent from the other depictions, but are a prominent feature of many renderings of Moshe. In Shemot 34:30, after Moshe descends with the second set of tablets, we are told, "כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו" (Moshe's skin took on a radiant glow). The conception that the verse speaks of a horned Moshe stems from the translation in Jerome's Latin Vulgate which renders "קָרַן", as cornuta, or horn.16 It is perhaps surprising, though, that Chagall, a Jewish artist, would be influenced by the Vulgate, and it is possible that his source is actually Rashi's comments on the verse.17 When explaining the phrase, Rashi also connects the word "קָרַן" to horns, writing: "because the light shone and protruded like horns." If so, Chagall is portraying shining beams, which simply appear like horns.18